pique your politicstm

Blogs

Blogs

To hear opponents of Voter ID laws describe it, asking â€śdisenfranchisedâ€ť individuals to obtain a photo ID is like asking them to crawl through broken glass…. and then pay for the privilege of doing so.

Itâ€™s racist.Â Itâ€™s discriminatory. Â Itâ€™s voter suppression on the grandest scale.Â Itâ€™s â€śThe Mark of the Beastâ€ť foretold in the Book of Revelation.

Of course, those arguments melt away when you throw a bucket of water on themâ€¦ like when you point out everything else in modern society â€“ including most dealings with local, state, and Federal government â€“ that requires a photo ID.Â These include:

So Democrats, Eric Holder, and Michelle Obama are â€śdisenfranchisingâ€ť people now, apparently. Critics of Voter ID laws â€“ mostly Democrats, if we are really being honest here â€“ maintain that this is a solution for which there is no evidence of a problem; voter fraud is extremely rare.Â Of course, following their logic, we should eliminate IRS audits, because most people are basically honest.Â They deliberately overlook the fact that the mere existence of penalties for voter fraud, discourages itâ€¦ and that great safeguards discourage it even further.

Democrats forget that the 2000 Presidential Elections between George W. Bush and Al Gore ultimately came down to just 537 votes in Florida.Â (Or, maybe they do rememberâ€¦ and feel that blocking Voter ID laws gives them a chance to canvass a few prisons, cemeteries or hospital nurseries for votesâ€¦ something ACORN had zero problems doing: itâ€™s been reported that as many as 83% of its voter registrations were fraudulent.)

What about costs?Â In every state we checked, a state-issued photo ID was free of chargeâ€¦ except Wisconsin, where it was free only if you said you needed it to vote (otherwise, it cost $28.)Â Thatâ€™s more of an IQ test than anything else.

And what will the impact be?Â Not only fewer phony votes, but higher voter participation among valid, registered votersâ€¦ encouraged that â€ścleanâ€ť elections are worth participating in.Â Check out this report from an excellent book by John R. Lot, â€śFreedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-baked Theories Don’tâ€ťâ€¦

â€śHow can we ascertain whether stricter anti-fraud regulations will increase or decrease voter turnout?Â One place to start is to study the impact such rules have had in other countries.Â A good example is Mexico, which implemented some unusually stringent anti-fraud regulations in 1991. To vote there, a person must present a voter ID card that includes a photograph as well as a thumbprint.Â The cards themselves are virtually counterfeit-proof, using holographic images, imbedded security codes, and a magnetic strip containing still more security information.Â As an extra precaution, votersâ€™ fingers are dipped in indelible ink to prevent people from voting multiple times.

Furthermore, Mexican voters cannot register by mail; they most go in person to a registration office to apply for a voter ID card, then return three months later to get it.Â Absentee ballots were banned due to their misuse during the 1988 presidential election.Â Although they were reintroduced for the 2006 election, their use is closely regulated, with voters required to request a ballot at least six months prior to the election.

How have these measure measures effected voting rates? Voter turnout averaged 68% in the three presidential elections held since the reforms were adopted, compared to a 59% average rate in the three elections before the reforms.Â Clearly, citizens were encouraged to vote by the prospect of clean elections.â€ť

Given the lengths Democratic vote riggers will go to steal elections, that all sounds pretty good to me.